Anderson v. the State
335 Ga. App. 78
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Anderson, an attorney, represented Watson in a civil libel/fee dispute with Ware; a handwritten business card with Ware’s alleged signature was admitted in the civil trial.
- Ware denied the agreement and testified he had not signed the card; a handwriting expert testified the signature was forged.
- After adverse civil rulings (including a directed verdict against Anderson), criminal forgery charges were brought against Anderson based on the same card.
- At the criminal trial the State presented Ware and the handwriting expert; the jury convicted Anderson of first-degree forgery on one count (one count nolle prossed).
- Anderson, representing himself on appeal, argued the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial (claiming ineffective assistance by trial counsel) and a separate motion to avoid costs/fines; the latter was abandoned on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Anderson failed to show prejudice from any alleged counsel deficiencies given the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Anderson's Argument | State/Ware's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance was erroneous | Trial counsel’s representation was deficient in omissions/commissions; those errors warranted a new trial | Counsel had reasonable strategy; errors (if any) were not shown to have prejudiced outcome given strong evidence | Affirmed — Anderson failed to show prejudice under Strickland; overwhelming evidence supported conviction |
| Whether denial of motion to avoid costs/fines was erroneous | Trial court should have avoided costs/fines (claimed in brief but not argued) | No substantive response needed on appeal; issue not briefed | Abandoned on appeal for lack of argument/citation |
| Timeliness of notice of appeal | (Implicit) Notice timely despite being filed 31 days after order because 30th day fell on a Sunday | State argued untimely | Court held notice timely under OCGA timing rules |
| Conformity of appellant brief to court rules (procedural) | Appellant submitted a nonconforming brief with scattered assertions and poor organization | Court criticized brief; allowed some leniency but may limit review | Court admonished Anderson (an attorney) for nonconforming brief and declined to comb record for undeveloped claims; reviewed arguable points and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. State, 270 Ga. App. 522 (discussing standard of review on appeal in criminal cases)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes rational trier of fact standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Ashmid v. State, 316 Ga. App. 550 (application of Strickland prejudice inquiry)
- Burger v. State, 323 Ga. App. 787 (noting appellate courts need only address one Strickland prong if other not shown)
- Crumity v. State, 321 Ga. App. 768 (trial tactics/strategy rarely establish ineffective assistance unless patently unreasonable)
- Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50 (pro se/pro se-attorney briefing standards and consequences of nonconforming briefs)